AAS 74 - Vaticano

1064 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale
it unnecessary to revise the original Statements; rather, it has left
their adjustment to two series of elncidations. The result is a lack of
harmony and homogeneity which could lead to différent readings and
to an nnwarranted use of the Commissione texts.
The following aspects are more important, for even thongh they
pertain to the method employed, they are not without doctrinal signi­
ficans :
ii) The ambiguity of the phrase "substantial agreement".
The English adjective could be taken to indicate nothing other than
"real" or "genuine". But its translation, at least into languages
of Latin origin, as "substantiel", "sostanziale"—above ali with the
connotation of the word in Catholic theology—leads one to read into it
a fundamental agreement about points which are truly essential (and
one will see below that the SCDF has justified réservations in this
regard).
Another source of ambiguity lies in the following fact : a comparison
of three texts (Elucidations, Salisbury [1979], nos. 2 and 9; Authority
in the Church I, Venice [1976], no. 26) shows that the agreement
spoken of as "substantial", while considered by ARCIC to be very
extensive, is not yet complete. This does not permit one to know
whether, in the eyes of the members of ARCIC, the différences which
remain or the things which are missing from the document only deal
with secondary points (for example, the structure of liturgical rites,
theological opinion, ecclesiastical discipline, spirituality), or whether
these are points which truly pertain to the faith. Whatever the case,
the Congrégation is obliged to observe that sometimes it is the second
hypothesis which is verifìed (for example, Eucharistie adoration, papal
primacy, the Marian dogmas), and that it would not be possible here
to appeal to the "hierarchy of truths" of which no. 11 of the Decree
Unitatis redintegratio of Vatican II speaks (cf. the Déclaration Myste­
rium Ecclesiae no. 4, par. 3).
iii) The possibility of a twofold interprétation of the texts.
Certain formulations in the Report are not suffìciently explicit and
henee can lend themselves to a twofold interprétation, in which both
parties can find unchanged the expression of their own position.
This possibility of contrasting and ultimately incompatible readings
of formulations which are apparently satisfactory to both sides gives
rise to a question about the real consensus of the two Communions,